|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 15, 2020 20:03:23 GMT
Even the greatest bands and artists tend to have some stinkers. Go ahead, complain! Get it off your chest here!
In 1998, legendary hard rock band Van Halen closed its two classic eras (David Lee Roth, 1978-84; Sammy Hagar, 1985-96) and offered its first (and last) album with former Extreme singer Gary Cherone on board to handle vocals, Van Halen III.
Van Halen III is, if I may be so bold, a gigantic, bloated, uninteresting and inconsequential pile of feces. The hooks and riffs aren't memorable (though a few at times seem to be direct ripoffs of the classics). The guitar tone--from Eddie Van Halen, he of the famous "brown sound!"--reminds me mostly of presets from the little Zoom effects gear of the era, thin little auto-wah or phaser based tones, corny digital delays. The lyrics are best ignored. Ten of the songs, all of those with lyrics, are longer than 5:24, including four that surpass the six-minute mark.
There just isn't much good to say about this album. I never hated it this much before, but it just occurred to me why: I am pretty sure I never listened to it. I know I never owned it. I think I heard the band added Cherone and had mixed feelings (despite loving Extreme); heard the single "Without You;" and was officially sad. And that was that. I moved on. Probably the smartest decision I've ever made in my life as relates to Van Halen.
I decided to re-listen to its predecessor, the last studio album with Hagar on board, 1995's Balance. I did own, and at least at the time listen to, that one. It was never among my favorite Van Halen albums, though. It always struck me as fine. The least of the "Van Hagar" albums, but certainly not an embarrassment. It was very successful from a sales perspective (#1 on the Billboard Top 200; triple platinum), though I don't recall its reviews being especially positive even at the time. It has fallen out of fashion even more since then.
And you know what? It's about 197x better than Van Halen III. It really is. My god.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 16, 2020 12:16:46 GMT
It's funny that you posted this, as just last week, I decided to listen to VHIII for the first time since I permanently shelved it back in 1998. I thought, maybe there's a hidden gem in there. And, no, it's actually worse than I remembered. Maybe Eddie was stuck in the 1990s sludge, and wanted to create an album to match the angsty rock that was ever so popular at the time. I don't know.
Most of the songs go absolutely nowhere. Eddie's guitar work is something that it never, ever, should be - generic.
I honestly feel bad for Gary Cherone here. He's a very good singer and frontman, and I thought a good choice for Van Halen. But, he was the sacrificial lamb, but he joined a band whose musical driving force had become listless.
I do still like Without You and Fire in the Hole, but even those songs are at the bottom of any list of VH favorites.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 16, 2020 17:42:01 GMT
I don't think a disclaimer is necessary: you know I love Lou Reed and the Velvet Underground. And if we're being honest (just you and me, in this private little conversation), Reed was hardly the epitome of consistent greatness. It's a sad day when an undeniable rock music legend has as many as half a dozen candidates for this thread.
The 1979 album The Bells sucks. How it is relatively well regarded is beyond me. (Allmusic gives it four stars!) The sound, as was typical of Reed from the mid 70s through 1980, is dominated by the annoying soft jazz-rock tones of keyboards, thin and heavily effected (the accursed twins of the decade, flangers and phasers) guitars, and saxophones. (Jazz legend Don Cherry is here. He doesn't help.) What's more, things veer into disco. Repeatedly.
Musicianship isn't the issue. The band is talented. The songs are terrible. That's the issue. Well, an issue. Reed was never known for his voice, but the guy wrote some great, great melodies and riffs: "Sweet Jane," "Sunday Morning," "Rock and Roll," "Perfect Day," "I'm Waiting For My Man," and many others.
None of those great melodies or riffs are found on this album. Not even any good ones, to be honest.
What's worse yet is that Reed--again, never known as a singer--sings. I mean, he really tries to sing. Melodies. With notes. He fails miserably. He has an odd affectation, a surprisingly trebly, thin, like he's doing a character. (Of course "Lou Reed" himself was a character. But that's for another day.)
"Stupid Man" is not a good song, but it opens the album and is one of the best here. Things get worse. A lot worse. "Disco Mystic?" At least on "City Lights" he drops that cartoon voice ... but it's not actually any better as he speaks in a bass voice over what might be the corniest music I've ever heard in my life.
I hate this album so much and don't understand--however bad the drug and alcohol problems--how someone who masterminded half a dozen or more stone-cold classics could possibly have done this.
|
|
bellbottoms
Pacific Coast Highway
Posts: 727
Likes: 201
|
Post by bellbottoms on Apr 17, 2020 14:10:26 GMT
While I'm thinking about David Bowie... his 1987 album Never Let Me Down. The suckiest bunch of suck that ever dribbled out from his otherwise magnificent brain.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 17, 2020 15:12:00 GMT
Metallica - St Anger - remains the worst album I've ever heard by a band that I like. It's long, the production is non existent, there are zero guitar solos, the lyrics are bad (even by Metallica standards), there is very little melody. The album just sounds like a long collection of riffs and angry vocals. It's basically progressive punk.
As documented in the documentary Some Kind of Monster, the album was rushed in a time that the band was going through some turmoil. Longtime bassist Jason Newsted left the group, and singer/guitarist James Hetfield went into rehab. When James returned, the band quickly worked to get the album out for early summer 2003, with producer Bob Rock filling in on bass.
Despite hitting #1, the album received a very cold response from fans and critics alike. Very telling, the band only played two songs from the album on their 2003 tour, and now pretty much pretend the album doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 31, 2020 19:02:33 GMT
Here's an episode of the You Tube series Train Wrecords (one on SIP was posted elsewhere on this forum.)
Much like the SIP one, this is interesting, and even humorous at times, but the host seems like such a douche nozzle. At least he didn't call anyone a VH a "boomer" 48 times.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 21, 2021 12:28:09 GMT
Last week, I decided to explore the catalog of another AOR band I've always liked - Styx.
It was all going pretty well until the 1999 reunion album Brave New World. To be honest, even though I was into Styx in 1999, I don't even remember this album coming out. It was released on CMC, which has been referred to as "Classic Metal Cemetery" before. I'm almost halfway through, and so far, this is truly awful. If not for the recognizable voices of Young, Shaw, and DeYoung, I would think this was a late 90s boy band album.
Here's the opening track
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 21, 2021 12:42:52 GMT
Wow, that's terrible. I hit play then switched windows to work, and honestly zoned out. By the time the music drew my attention again, it was the chorus, and I had totally forgotten what it was. I honestly thought it was some pop tripe. Then I remembered what I was listening to and was confused. I go back to your post and see you nailed it: boy band.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 21, 2021 12:53:06 GMT
Wow, that's terrible. I hit play then switched windows to work, and honestly zoned out. By the time the music drew my attention again, it was the chorus, and I had totally forgotten what it was. I honestly thought it was some pop tripe. Then I remembered what I was listening to and was confused. I go back to your post and see you nailed it: boy band. There are a couple more Styx like rockers as the album goes on, but it's really a mess. I can see why this lineup never worked together again. Even as early as 1983, Shaw & Young were not on the same page as DeYoung anymore.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jul 10, 2021 1:50:08 GMT
The Rolling Stones' Exile on Main St.
OK, let me explain! I do NOT think this album sucks, but I gave it a listen for the first time in a long time and one very specific thing began to frustrate me: Mick's lead vocals are BURIED in the mix. And, if that's not enough, it sounded like he was quadruple-tracked most of the time....and there's also a lot of unison singing by background singers as there's a party/group-sung vibe to the album....and, of course, Mick's not keen on enunciating anything. Add all this together and drop the lead vocal another 10db and good luck deciphering any of the god damn words!
Everything else about the album is really cool. Musically, I love it. And, from what I can tell, Mick sounds good. Why not turn him up? Not all songs are mixed so terribly, especially near the end. You also get some single-tracked leads from Mick in a few spots which increase clarity and he sounds great. I was listening in my car, not with headphones. Not sure if my opinion would change much, though. Can other fans actually understand what he's singing? Without reading the lyrics? And, despite really liking the tunes, very little jumped out at me as GREAT. No 10s, no 9s. Just a ton of 8s filling up a double sided record. (Which is nothing to dismiss.)
I don't think the album's ever been remixed, but I'd love to hear it!
|
|